- News & Comment
-
Online Shop
Online Services
Looseleafs
Law Reports
Books and eBooks
- CPD & Events
- Authors
- About Family Law
- Contact
The consequences of a conspiracy to commit an offence of insider dealing concerning RBS shares might not be of obvious interest to a family property lawyer. But in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court held that the House of Lords’ decision in the well-known domestic property case of Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 should no longer be followed.
T and M bought a house to live in. T and M understood that they were joint beneficial owners but legal title was in T’s sole name. This was to enable false claims to benefits to be made. M subsequently confessed to the DSS. T moved out and served notice to quit on M. T and M issued cross-claims for declarations of ownership: T that she was sole owner M that T held it on trust for both in equal shares.
The trial judge found for M. The Court of Appeal and House of Lords dismissed T’s appeals both by a majority. Lord Browne-Wilkinson giving the leading speech of the majority ...Read the full article here.
